Quote:
Originally Posted by representative_agent
I think it all depends on your measures of success. In academia, the general measure of success seems to be the number of publications in top journals and the number of citations. We all are surrounded by an academic environment and probably most of us consider this measure as legitimate. The first thing I do when I have a new professor for example is to check is publications.
But will you be publishing in a top journal? And will you get citations? The 95th percentile paper has zero citations. And even the median JPE paper gets zero citations. In other words: nobody cares. I think that israelecon's 2% are a very optimistic guess.
|
I agree. The fact is, most economists will not be "superstars." Furthermore, it seems to me that there are many academic jobs that aren't that attractive (high teaching loads, little research, low pay, little control over location).
I also do find it somewhat disheartening that you could work very hard on a paper and have only a few people actually read it, and even most of them will forget about it within a couple months. I personally believe that the solid academic jobs are some of the best in the world. However, I also believe that many of the below average academic jobs are not that great. This is just my own personal opinion however, and I fully realize that many TMers disagree, and I honestly understand where they're coming from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by representative_agent
And what about your non-academic environment? Do they care about what you do? Will you be able to talk to them about what you do? A neuro-scientist can at least tell his children that he wants to understand how the picture gets from their eye into the brain and how this leads to actions by their hands. But do you really want to discuss the existence and stability of equilibria over dinner? My point is that people outside your field will rarely be able to understand and value what you do (except if you are Steven Levitt). Your children cannot tell their friends what their father or mother does.
|
Well you could always emphasize that you teach college students about the great and very important discipline known as economics. In fact, most academics probably contribute more to other people through teaching their discipline rather than doing research. Again, this is just my opinion and I realize (and understand) that many TMers will probably beg to differ.
In all honesty though, who cares what others think about your job? Human interaction/relationships should not be mainly focused on peoples' jobs. Seriously, how anti-social does a group of people have to be in order to only have their jobs to talk about. In reality, most people will have a slight curiousity and mild interest in what you do (as you probably will about their work). Therefore, spend a few minutes talking about what you do, and move onto a conversation that you both find more interesting. Many non-economists will not understand what you do, and will find it either difficult to understanded or possibly boring. This reminds me of some of the really smart people who have trouble making friends and having relationships with the opposite sex, because they spend way too much time talking about the things they're good at and understand, yet they don't have the basic social skills to just shoot the sh*t with somebody for awhile talking about something else.
Don't get me wrong, because I'm not saying that people shouldn't get into in depth conversations about economics, science, politics, etc. I'm just saying that not everyone finds these things as interesting as we aspiring PhDs do. That's why I try to limit my conversations about these things to others that seem to have a genuine interest in them as well. For example, me and my roommate will sometimes sit around and talk political philosophy for hours, but it's because we both enjoy talking and thinking about it (obiviously, we also have many conversations that don't relate to this "more serious" stuff). Likewise, when I'm talking to some of my other friends who don't enjoy this stuff, I lighten up on it and try to discuss other things. Lastly, I truly find it fascinating to talk about economics, which is one main reason I'd like to work with economists in the future. I mean, how cool would it be to go grab a couple beers with a fellow economist and talk economics (hopefully, I'll even get some of this as a grad student with faculty and fellow grad students).
Quote:
Originally Posted by representative_agent
Don't get me wrong. I'm very excited about economics and about doing research. But I think we should do it for the right reasons. And we should know the price. I think that if your goal is to "make an impact", you risk being very disappointed in 30 years from now. You'll hardly ever get to hear a "thank you" for what you do.
|
I also think that people should do it for the "right reasons." In my opinion, the right reason to become an academic is often a fairly selfish one, that is, "I want to be an academic because I am fascinated with economics, and I don't care if anyone else gives a rats behind about my research. I'm doing this for me. If others find an interest in what I do, or if I make some important contributions to the world and the field, then it's all the better." Interestingly, I heard Steven Levitt say something similar on his interview with Charlie Rose. Basically Levitt said you should study economics for very personal reasons, because it's unlikely that your work will "change the world." Put differently, I agree representative_agent that studying economics in the hopes of "changing the world" or "making an impact" will likely be setting yourself up for future failure, dissappointment, and unhappiness.